Beauty, Mercy, Justice

Evangelical Beauty and Rubrical Fundamentalism

There is, on Facebook, a page called “Things Jesus Never Said” which is pretty funny. These fake quotes, like “Once saved, always saved. Unless you turn out badly and backslide; then we totally know you were never saved”, are mostly directed toward Protestants of the fundamentalist persuasion, but I wish someone would do the same with the sort of conservative Catholics that can safely be called rubrical fundamentalists.

I say this because of the uproar, in certain circles, that Pope Francis has caused, most recently by (gasp!) washing the feet of young women on Holy Thursday, one of them a Muslim. This, they proclaim, violates all sorts of liturgical rubrics, sets a bad example, and liturgical mayhem is in the forecast.

Please.

Things Jesus did not say: “Go forth unto every nation and teach them to observe liturgical rubrics to the letter.” If you cannot distinguish between this profoundly beautiful act and clown Masses I’m afraid I don’t know what to say.

And note that I love beautiful liturgy and have little tolerance for banality in worship. I will drive a good long way to avoid bad liturgy, and worship in the Byzantine tradition, where deviation is unknown. The worse thing you will find in our churches is a priest rushing through it.

But it seems to me – and I pray I am not disillusioned- that Pope Francis is demonstrating by example the primacy of Christ, the primacy of evangelical beauty. Washing the feet of young prisoners, and young women at that, is, like so many things he has done or not done in his young papacy, recalling us to the simplicity of the Gospel, the Way of Jesus.

To criticize him for not observing the rubrics recalls nothing if not the Pharisees, damning Christ for breaking the rules.

I am thinking that this pope is going to be very good for certain types of conservative Catholics, though it is going to be painful for them.

49 Responses

I’ll have to disagree with you here. The Liturgy is not primarily a tool for evangelization-rather, it is for the household of faith. It assumes the people there are believers. It is not a tool for making social or political statements, no matter how noble or Christian. I’m all for washing the feet of unbelievers-but not in this context. The Pope’s actions are inconsistent with the context of this rite within the Holy Thursday Liturgy. No, this is not on the level of a clown Mass, but ignoring rubrics encourages people to do just that-ignore rubrics, and everyone who does it thinks they have some good reason to do so. Lex orandi, lex credendi. The faith is not well served by these actions. He should not be washing the feet of women in this context, and the feet should be those of people who already believe in Christ. He changed the very meaning of the Mandatum by his actions, and I’m sorry, but I don’t think that’s a good thing to do. The Liturgy does not belong to him, even if he is the Pope. It belongs to the Church.

true enough Tina, i understand the worry ..”give an inch take a mile” regarding rubrics..but i undwrstand also the history of rubric and law and that it is not Divine law.This rubric has not been changed yet,but apparently the Holy Father is saying that it should be.And..yes, he should respect traditions,but we cant forget that indeed-he IS the pope and rubica-ally speaking, he can absolutely do what he wants.He is not bucking authority…he IS the authority in these matters.Havi.g said that..I do worry that clergy will get looser in their order after seeing the pope do this.Also remember that no liturgy has evwr been “the lloturgy.”It has always changed in the non-essentials, and the Pope indeed is the one that often does it.If nothing ever changed or developed in liturgy,our Masses would look like The Last supper.

Every liturgy is a chance at evangelicalism. Sometimes, the people we most need to evangelize, are the people sitting in the pew next to us. We are not Biblical Fundamentalists who believe in Once Saved Always Saved- we’re still being converted- for those of us Latins who believe in Purgatory, our conversion will continue until we join the Church Triumphant, even after this shell becomes dust. The Liturgy is supposed to give us a taste of heaven; the problem comes that we all have different ideas of what heaven is to be like. I’m all for Pope Francis’s vision that heaven is, for him, a life of service, yes, even service to a Muslim Woman incarcerated for some crime we don’t know. I have to wonder though- if this will be the beginning of a much needed conversion for her.

The Liturgy, by definition, is for believers-not the evangelization of non-Christians. I’m not saying the Liturgy doesn’t convert us more deeply when we participate in it. I’m saying the Liturgy is for the household of faith-it assumes by its very structure that those present believe in the Lord. Non-believers were not even permitted to stay for the Eucharist in the early church. The Mandatum has a particular meaning-it was not honored by the Pope’s act, rather, the meaning was changed. “He can absolutely do what he wants.” One of the reasons I am not Roman Catholic. Just imagine what that statement could mean if you got a pope with a weakness for clown liturgies.

I agree with the canonists who say that the rubric specifies “viri”: which includes men and not women. There has always been some ambiguity in whether the rite is important as a model for service primarily for Holy Orders, or equally for all believers. Either makes sense for me, and I’m happy to take the Pope’s example here as precedent. But, it sets a poor precedent that the rubrics can be ignored, even for a good reason. They should change the word “viri” to remove the ambiguity.

I have to agree with those who think that Pope Francis was wrong. As long as the rubrics say what they say, then they should be followed. For those who are applauding this act, I have a question or two: Which rubrics are ok to ignore? Does anyone other than the Pope have a right to ignore rubrics? Why have rubrics in the first place?

The purpose of the rubrics is to show us a vision of heaven. And perhaps, this is a sign that this rubric will be changed. Pope Francis was, before his election, a member of the Congregation for Divine Worship, after all.

I’d like to see the pope make some much-needed changes to some of the disciplines that are well overdue for change. At some point though, these changes should be formalized.

The Holy Thursday event might technically be stretching the rubrics, but his intent I believe was to draw more into the service of the Church, and not stand on the sidelines like cheerleaders. And women are being called to greater acts of service, and that is a good thing.

I’ve expressed earlier that the married priesthood should be considered to bring back holiness to the sacrament. The celibate priesthood has attracted many homosexual men who have nearly destroyed all credibility of the priesthood through their filthy acts with post pubescent boys. Not all priests with homosexual tendencies are problematic, but those who have crossed the line should be removed, and replaced with married priests to restore trust to the local faithful.

Thank you Daniel, once again. Catholics on both sides of the extreme whether liberal or conservative show a shocking lack of DOCILITY- the capacity to be taught. What is our Holy Father teaching us here? To throw out tradition? Hardly – this was a more private untelevised affair. I think once again the media is blowing the whole thing out of context. Our diocese, since I came back to the Faith eight years ago, has always included men, women, and children in the washing of the feet. Having been sucked into the atmosphere of liturigcal fundamentalism that is rampant in Catholic homeschooling circles, for years I stopped attending the Holy Thursday Mass because I thought my children were being shown a bad example. We went this year – and there were men and women and children. I was the bad example all those years I didn’t attend. May God forgive me.

As a pretty much middle-of-the-road Catholic I am used to the idea of both men and women coming up for foot washing – it’s about the ministerial priesthood being lived in service and this service pouring out to everyone – and I fully accept that the ministerial priesthood itself is restricted to men, which is really a different question. Holy Thursday is indeed about the institution of Holy Orders also, but that is “covered”, so to speak, by the Chrism Mass earlier in the day (often earlier in Holy Week). It’s too bad that the Chrism Mass in our diocese is not scheduled at a time when we can easily attend and show solidarity and gratitude for the priesthood.

But the persnickety and mean-spirited ways of some of those who wish to be liturgical police is hard to take.

Uhm, I know this is the sort of pious take of Orthodox, but I guess, rightly or wrongly, I don’t expect it so much from Eastern Catholics. Aside from it being a pious saying, surely you don’t actually believe it?

Worship in the Byzantine tradition in the United States has numerous deviations from the typikons. The whole vesporal liturgy thing done in some OCA and many AOANA parishes, for instance (I’m not talking presanctifieds, I’m talking about a mish mash vespers-divineliturgy combo done throughout the year). Or on the eastern Catholic side you had that whole fight over the new novus ordoized divine liturgy which I’m told a number of parishes just ignored (keeping with their much like the OCA liturgies) while other parishes embraced the new stuff. . Outside of the contemporary American context you see throughout Orthodox history many ecclesial battles fought over deviations from rubric/typikon. Take the Old Believers vs. the Nikhonian reforms, or the Kollyvades movement, and hell, the fight between new and old calendarists (which has significant effect on liturgical life – the alteration of the Apostles fast that results, the ending of the possibility of a kyriopascha). Just sayin’…..

I was not talking about exact adherence to rubrics; heck, my old parish prayed the rosary right before liturgy (!) and you are right about what you say. What I intended to say is that nowhere will you find a priest ad libbing the canon or choirs singing “Glory and Praise” songs, or the other kinds of banality you find in the Latin rite. Divine Liturgy is transcendent, whether or not it satifies the liturgical purists.

I think Pope Francis did a beautiful thing, Women are needed in service very much in the church right now. I think that the crisis of vocations, and many other ills stem right now from a lack of support for the role of women, particularly mothers of small children, even amongst members of the church.
JPII repeatedly addresses the need to support the role of women in his writings on the genius of women in this respect.
. I am not saying female priests are the answer but rather supporting the mothers who are raising those little boys who may later join the priesthood. Small boys who learn love on a mother’s lap, and learn peace as well become the backbone of a strong priesthood and a strong community.
If we want better priests, respecting the role of women as mothers comes first.

Yes, well said. As for the Church, and its Tradition. Well, change of discipline does not change Tradition, it only changes a “small t” tradition. If the Church were never to have changed its rites, then we’d still be celebrating the Last Supper the way Jesus did it. So, for those who wish to be frozen in time, then where is it that you wish to be frozen? The First century, the year 1000? 2000? What was the best time for the Church? Conversely, speaking to that point, the fact that we have a pope, and a “living magisterium” is because the gospel should always be fresh, and contemporary, yet simultaneously convey the age old Tradition of the Church.

To qualify, though, I will say that any small t tradition that is way outside of the norm of Capital T Tradition, is one that is probably not going to fly. When I use the term small t traditions, it would be referring to, for example, the various rites of the Divine Liturgy throughout the centuries. The Capital T Tradition is the Mass, or the Divine Liturgy itself, meaning the central core parts of it that were always said regardless of rite. Obviously the Eucharistic Liturgy is only one aspect of Tradition.

I would agree though that banal liturgies should be a thing of the past, a tradition that I would like to see sent to the dustbins of Church history, even though they are technically valid because they contain the core elements.

Simply because there is change in liturgical tradition, it does not follow that any particular existing tradition should be done away with. “Small ‘t’ tradition” might not be of divine origin, but that doesn’t mean that it is unimportant or that it can be lightly abandoned; indeed, such a course could affect our existential adhesion to “big ‘T’ tradition”, for culture is like a second nature.

Nor does a particular pope’s departure from tradition establish a norm or indicate that the tradition in question should change. The pope is infallible only in certain cases, and those pertaining to teaching or to the guarantee that disciplines promulgated for the universal Church are not in themselves obnoxious to faith and morals; he is not impeccable, nor is his every act inspired by the Holy Spirit. Further, the pope’s role is not to change even “small ‘t’ tradition,” but to preserve it, except where the good of the Church most certainly demands that it be changed. This, by the way, was the limitation set on liturgical renewal by the Second Vatican Council — and we have seen what happens when such counsel is ignored.

I never said it was anything else. (By the way, I posted on a different computer; hence the MtMama moniker.) I was addressing your point about changing “small ‘t’ traditions,” not foot washing per se.

As for Pius XII’s restoration — the fact that foot washing was part of this reform does not mean that it was not practiced previously. The 19th century Benedictine abbot, Dom Gueranger, has this to say about the Mandatum in Volume Vi of his work, The Liturgical Year:

“In every church of any importance, the prelate or superior honors our Savior’s condescension by the ceremony called the washing of feet. The bishops throughout the world follow the example set them by the sovereign Pontiff, who performs this ceremony in the Vatican. Yet there is still to be found kings and queens who, on this day, wash the feet of the poor, and give them abundant alms. The twelve apostles are represented by the twelve poor who, according to the most general practice, are chosen for this ceremony. The Pope, however, washes the feet of thirteen priests of as many different coutnries.”

He then goes on to speculate on the number 13, suggesting that it might have arisen from a legend of Pope St. Gregory the Great, who “used, every day, to wash the feet of twelve poor men whom he afterwards invited to his own table. One day, a thirteenth was present: it was an angel, whom God had sent, that he might thereby testify how dear to Him was the charity of His servant.”

Pope Francis might have avoided controversy if he had chosen to wash the feet of the prisoners on another day than Holy Thursday. After all, Pope St. Gregory set a precedent for this.

I understand your point, and it is valid. Right now, though, there is a crisis in the Church that has to do with the youth, or should I say lack thereof.The Church at present needs to renew some of its traditions in order to experience a resurrection of sorts. There is a good and holy Church not far from my house (20 mi.), and there the pastor has wound everything back to the 1950’s. It is a beautiful ceremony, much chant, great Liturgy, but you’re lucky if you can spot 15 kids in there on a given Sunday. We are losing our kids in part because of antiquated rubrics, and outdated forms. My church is just the opposite: nearly half or more of the congregation each Sunday are kids, teenagers, and young adults. We have to do more than just establish doctrine and police the rites of the Church, we must find a way to have everyone fall in love with Jesus, and then realize that He is the central part of the Liturgy. Then, and only then, does everything fall into place.

The pope, I believe, has read Matthew 15, and decided that there are more important battles out there than purity of ritual (at some point though, he needs to formalize his changes). I am ready for change, and realize it will be awkward for a while, but I believe it is time to renew the Church. Maybe I am wrong, but Love for Christ needs to be the immediate focus.

Bringing Christ to the world and preserving traditions are not mutually exclusive. It is not as if the Latin Church has been doing all that much preservation of traditions in the past 50 years — rather, we have lived through a rather iconoclastic age. Much of this iconoclasm has been done to make the Church more relevant, and it has failed miserably. The problem, as I see it, is not the traditions — for they are the vehicles through which Apostolic Tradition is in large part communicated — but the fact that Catholics have succumbed to the spirit of the age, have grown fat and comfortable, and have abandoned the radical witness of charity and truth. If the Catholics rediscovered and tried to live the fulness of the Gospel, the traditions would be no hindrance; for they are not the hindrance now. I do understand why Pope Francis decided to wash the feet of young women in the prison; it perhaps sent the right message to the prisoners, but it sent a confusing message to the universal Church as far as obedience to Church law goes.

Already the press is using the pope’s act to claim that maybe change is in the air regarding women’s ordination. It is a stretch, I admit; but predictable and, for some, possibly productive of confusion in a matter of faith, which it is the pope’s primary duty to guard against. The rite of the mandatum specifies that the celebrant wash the feet of 12 men (viri) — the number indicates that they are to represent the apostles; thus, the specification of viri in the rubrics. If the pope should change the liturgical law in this matter, I would hope he make it clear in some way that he is changing the symbolism.

Father Lombardi, the pope’s spokesman, said in the “specific situation” it would have been “inopportune” to exclude the women “in light of the simple aim of communicating a message of love to all.” I can understand the reasoning; but priests could use the same reasoning to justify themselves doing the same thing — just as Pope Francis presumably did when he washed women’s feet on Holy Thursday when archbishop of Buenos Aires. But if priests can ignore this rubric for what they deem a good reason, why cannot they likewise ignore other rubrics?

Owen, in response to your comment on the Vesperal Liturgy: Having done some research on it, it appears to be an innovation common to the Antiochians. Some OCA do it, others don’t. The rationale seems to be that in the modern world people have trouble attending the “normal” liturgical cycle during the week because of work, which is probably true. It should be noted that many in the Orthodox church think the Antiochians are mistaken in doing this-but it is an officially permitted form in our jurisdiction. My priest, when he serves it, follows the rubrics-he doesn’t ad lib, which is something I suffered through as a RC for years. The mandatum, which the Pope celebrated, had fallen into disuse and then was restored. I don’t think anyone denies that liturgical practice changes, and sometimes that change comes from “innovations” that actually violate the original spirit of the typicon. I think what bothers people in the RC is that they frequently go to Mass (in some places), and find the rubrics held in contempt. They find priests that treat the Mass as their own private plaything-and whatever evils exist in the liturgical life of Orthodoxy, I have NEVER experienced that particular vice. The rubrics for the mandatum in the Latin church specify certain things-the Pope did not follow the rubrics. It may be the case he is allowed to do that, ,but people are (rightly) concerned that his ignoring the rubrics will give fuel to priests in other places to use his actions as an excuse for other (perhaps more horrifying) liturgical deviations. There is change in both the East and West-the Eastern liturgy doesn’t look like the first century. However, all change is not equal-some is good, some is bad, some is tolerable for the sake of circumstance. What is never good is treating the Liturgy as something that can be played with at the discretion of a priest, bishop or liturgy committee. Sticking services together (the Vesperal liturgy) is not the shocking experience of seeing dancing girls around the altar, or your deacon dancing in with the Gospel book, or having the canon of the Mass ad-libbed according to the personal politics of the celebrant. I’m not sure we should have vesperal liturgies, but they don’t even come close to things I saw as a Latin Catholic. No offense intended, but Latins often, it seems to me, hold on to the Pope for dear life because the liturgical life in their own diocese is so poor. Often all they have as a defense is, “Obey the Pope.” When the Pope ignores the rules, that leaves them at the mercy of some nun wanting to decorate the church like a circus tent for Easter. Yes, there is “deviation” everywhere, but I would argue that most of us who went East found less, and what we found was often “drift,” not blatant abuse. I have no doubt that if an Orthodox priest in my diocese did to the liturgy what I’ve seen done in Latin parishes, the bishop (an Antiochian even), would have him out on his ear in a moment. I’m not gloating. My oldest son is Catholic, Daniel is Catholic, many of my dear friends are Catholic. They deserve a liturgy that is true to the rubrics. No Christian of any stripe should have to get out of bed on Sunday morning and pray to God that their clergyman won’t do anything weird to the main service of Christian worship.

“They find priests that treat the Mass as their own private plaything-and whatever evils exist in the liturgical life of Orthodoxy, I have NEVER experienced that particular vice.”

I have certainly seen it, and on my former blog I reported such things as an AOANA parish doing Evangelical style praise and worship between Matins and DL. I have personally seen priests skip and alter things in services, especially the DL, which would give you a conniption fit (I have been to a couple of rural GOArch parishes in my lifetime where I was seriously not sure if what I was partaking of in the chalice was actually God because of all that was cut out — I’ve been to a DL that took 35 minutes start to finish before). And if the dozen or so times I’ve been to an Eastern Catholic parish (half that to Ukrainian Catholic parishes) is indicative, the playing loose with the rubrics is perhaps more common on that side of the Byzantine tradition, at least in America (or so I assume because of the incredible divergence between DLs at different Ukr Cath parishes I have been to).

In any event, it is simply a matter of fact that the statement “where deviation is unknown” with regard to Byzantine worship is not true. And when it comes to deviations from typikon, there is a large strand of thought in Orthodoxy that assumes that once you cross a certain point, it doesn’t much matter then how far you go with it. I mean, to the monks of the Kollyvades Movement, a vesperal liturgy would probably have been just as anathema as having Benny Hinn to the Holy Unction service on Holy Wednesday.

I have been told, and I think this is probably accurate, that when the first non-presanctified vesperal liturgy happened in this country (which was the first of its kind anywhere in Orthodoxy, as far as I know), it happened with the blessing of the OCA chancellor, and not the blessing of any bishop. But for all the vesperal lit bashing that is out there, I think they make perfect sense and are vital. It’s easy to play armchair fundamentalist and whine about people not being willing to attend traditional services, but our economy and culture simply doesn’t afford that to most people, and vesp lits allow people to hear liturgical texts they would otherwise not hear, as the texts of DL change little from feast to feast, most of the time. That said, in most of American Orthodoxy, most adherents are well into the middle class, and have more flexibility with regard to their work schedules, on the whole, than churches with a higher percentage of working class persons. But for those persons who have the deluded idea that Orthodoxy in America is for the working class and should reach out to the working class (and not simply a spiritual Renaissance Faire for middle class eastern fetishing aesthetes), I simply don’t see how you can do that seriously without things like vesp lits.

Not to get too pedantic, but Annunciation is always a vesperal divine liturgy, and I assume the model for expanding it to other feasts in recent times. That said, where I attended it this year it was done at 7AM so that people could go before work….. What can you do.

Samn, it is only a vesperal lit when it falls during a weekday, not when it falls on a Sat or Sun. It is the only DL of John C allowed during Lent, and the structure was clearly influenced by pre-sanct’s. It was also traditionally about a two and a half hour+ long service, not the hour and 15-25 minute vesp lit common in the AOANA and parts of the OCA. While it may have influenced the texts of contemporary vesp lits, to use it as a precedent for them is quite a stretch. Especially considering the fact that Annunciation was always noted for its uniqueness in the liturgical year. To strip down and cut and paste from that lit (assuming this was the case) and then do 10 or 20 or 30 vesp lits a year (which happens in some AOANA parishes), is certainly a deviation from both typikon and the spirit of the typikon. That said, as I infer above, what the hell else are you going to do in an American context if you want a broad number of people to be able to hear some of the more serious variable liturgical prayers?

Yeah, I mean, the question of what to value (like say, if having people hear all the variable texts is a priority or not or if being a typicon-stickler), is one of those questions that I don’t see being worth having an opinion about if you’re not a bishop or something. As far as the ‘who’s liturgy is more authentic and reverent’ pissing contests go, it’s identical to arguing over whether you believe pointillism or cubism is more authentically art…

Of late I’ve come to distrust any power of historical studies of liturgy to inform us of more than trivia…

I agree, but I think that if we are talking about deviation from rubrics, the case of the vesp lit is akin to what some RCs complain about with regard to tampering with rites in their tradition. But I also agree with Teena that relatively speaking this sort of deviation is quite nominal. Still, Orthodox history is replete with schisms and fistfights and beards getting cut off monks and the like over much more seemingly trivial alterations of rite.

I guess I’m spoiled in our South Carolina Latin Rite church. We have the most beautiful Novus Ordo mass weekly. And anyone who would have attended our Easter Vigil (last night), would have been in such awe, that they’d move to our town just to be there weekly.

Teena the Old Julian Calendar, designed by Julius Caesar, is one that accrues equinoctial errors every 131 years. wouldn’t you rather be on a more correct time cycle?

Greg, I am truly glad you have a liturgy worthy of the name. As to the “correct” time cycle, my problem with the new calendar in Orthodoxy is that the change was not done in the best way possible and has, in fact, caused a practical (and sometimes even serious) division in my Church that could have been avoided had it been done differently (or not at all). I would rather be on the OC with all my brothers and sisters than on the new with only part of them-and, unless we could have a common decision to switch to the new wholesale, we should have left it alone.

I guess sometimes you have to do something that shakes up every color of the spectrum to recall world-wide the original purpose of Christ’s example on the night of the Last Supper. So BRAVO, Francesco! You took a beautiful ritual in remembrance of an action of Christ and transformed it into an act of love, and thereby a vision of heaven.

It is really a matter of exercising the gift of discernment, isn’t it? I mean, really, saying that because the pope ignored a rubric the local priest is free to celebrate with a bozo nose is ridiculous. Isn’t the difference rather stark?

Jesus Christ routinely ignored the religious laws of His time, didn’t He? And was roundly criticized by the traditionalists for it. But He ignored the human law because of the more binding Law of Love. The pope did the same. Washing the feet of young prisoners was a beautiful act. If he had ignored the young women present and only washed the feet of the boys, what would that have said to the girls? And to the world? The pope, bowing before the outcasts, washing and kissing their feet, is a most eloquent act of love and service. Rejecting that act because it breaks a manmade rule is also eloquent, in quite another, pharisaical, way.

And to anyone who objects to his washing the feet of a Muslim: believe me, radical Muslims no doubt were horrified by this.

I think that the hyper-traditionalists have illustrated by their reaction far better than I could explain just what is wrong with them.

“I mean, really, saying that because the pope ignored a rubric the local priest is free to celebrate with a bozo nose is ridiculous.” Yes, that’s clear to you because your liturgical and aesthetic taste is good. But that’s not true for everyone. Liturgtical law exists in part because not everyone has good taste or prudence or even common sense..

As to our Lord’s teaching, remember this:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.” Matthew 23:23.

I’ll just give one more comment, and then I’ll leave this alone. When Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, as far as we know, he washed the feet of his twelve closest (male) friends. For all his love of the poor and the outcast, for all his acceptance of women, for all his mercy towards the unbeliever, he didn’t feel the need to include them in this ceremony as some sort of statement. There may have been women at the Last Supper-I wonder how they managed to survive if Jesus didn’t wash their feet too? That’s really the point-what IS the purpose and meaning of this particular ceremony within the Holy Thursday services? The Pope could wash the feet of other people at other times-and should, I would say. Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, and not to abolish it, and yes, he ignored human rules for the greater good of people. This ceremony, however, is a ceremony placed within a service that is geared precisely to those of the household of faith. It’s not FOR anyone else. As to the difference between this and a clown Mass, I think you are missing the point. American Catholics tend to be legalistic-both “liberals” and “traditionalists.” The clown Mass people have contempt for rules, but they will use the actions of Rome to justify themselves when it suits them. It lends the impression that you can ignore Rome and eventually Rome will see the light and follow the progressives (see the practice of altar girls). The traditionalists have a healthy respect for the rubrics, and they use them as a defense against people in their parishes who do not. Then, the rug is pulled out from under them, and they are left looking like people who care more about rules than those who issue those rules. I don’t think you are being fair to the traditionalists, Daniel, you can only call them Pharisees. Some probably are, but it’s also the slur used against people like you who care if the Mass is banal and full of Glory and Praise dreck. It all depends on whose ox is being gored, I guess. What the Pope did would probably not matter much except a huge number of Catholics are shell shocked and exhausted from the liturgy wars of the past decades-and everyone, both clown Mass fan and Latin Mass attendee, are looking to Rome to see what happens next. The Pope did no favors to those who are the most likely to obey him in other matters. I hope a little “prophetic” statement was worth it.

Very well put Teena. While the Pharisaical traditionalists have indeed made asses of themselves since the election of Pope Francis – whining about the mozetta and the red slippers and way overreacting to this – I agree that our pope could have made the same statement better and without causing confusion. He could have done a foot washing for any number of people earlier in the day – men and women, Catholics and other faiths, as a demonstration of humility and love. That would have been amazing, especially if he’d called the rest of the Vatican officials to do it with him. But in the liturgy I agree it would have been more beneficial to follow the rubrics and to keep it strictly to Catholics in communion. Still a bold statement could have been made there by washing the feet of poor priests serving in poor countries, the Argentinian priest who was tortured by the junta, infirm priests, priests marginalized for their challenging views, any of these would have made a statement and still followed the rubrics and the spirit of the commemoration. It seems pretty clear that in John that Jesus is instructing his apostles on how to minister to the people – that is, he is ministering to them as chosen pastors. Even more so Jesus makes it clear that the foot washing is a way of coming into communion with him – “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.” How does a Muslim fit into that meaning? Not to mention the clear reflection of baptism and washing away of sins that the original ritual is meant to convey although it is not made explicit. Foot washing as a gesture outside of the Holy Thursday liturgy can be used to simply imply love and humble service, but within the liturgy I think it carries more meanings and significance, and so the rubrics should be respected. But I do think concern (and triumphalism) is way overblown. Maybe Pope Francis let sentiment (or, more cynically, a photo op) override prudence to a small degree. No big deal.

Well said. I have had it with American Catholicism and its Protestant tendency to want to box up the truth and put it in a box (note BOTH liberals and conservatives do this.). If we are on fire with the love of Christ, than this is a living love which can only rejoice in the love of those whom society rejects.
Yes if Christ came to day he would be dining with gays, CEOs, and Muslim extremists.

The reason there are so many rites in the Church, is that the Apostles and their successors adapted the Church’s practices to the immediate culture. So, local expressions of the eternal truths, have been with the Church since the beginning.

Let’s give Frances a chance. I know he will not tamper with the Eastern Rites, but I hope he finds a way to draw the Latin Church out of its doldrums, and deep into the heart of Jesus. He needs to melt us down, making limber once again the stiff corpses that exist within it. People need to say, “Lord, I love you.” Nothing else matters but you. We need to stop looking at the Church as an impersonal mediator, and instead see how God is flowing in and through it. That way when we see Frances bend down to kiss the foot of a Muslim, we see Jesus doing it. Ah!

Yes, we had a nun at our church named Sister Frances. I must have gotten so used to that, I didn’t even notice. So … thanks for the catch … nothing implied … I meant Francis of Assisi, not Frances is a sissy.